There is so much going on right now that I have had to split the theological meltdown away from the secular reconstruction. But you don't get away that easily, dear reader, there is a bit of theology going down here too, courtesy of Adam calling out Milo. Milo is a creature of Fleet Street, and therefore converged in part. Adam needs to join Roosh and set up a spiritual recovery system for those who have gone too far down that rabbit hole for sexual licence, and Milo, you need to do a Roosh and some serious repenting. As do we all. For the prince of lies is far brighter than us, and will draw us to destruction for his amusement.
Those first few truths that they lead with are always very very carefully chosen because they provide the emotional hook that keeps you attached even through the most outrageous bullshit that follows. And none of us are completely immune to it. What counts is how quickly you are able to catch on.
Back to Milo. Is he one of them or one of us? This is actually quite easily answered. First, the fact that he got very big, very quickly, is your first clear indication that he is one of them. The only people that get big these days are controlled. Either they are on their side, or they are pretending to be on our side.
The enemy is rat cunning, so if they’re pretending then they’re going to make it look good. So they’ll stick protesters outside their meetings; they’ll get them banned from various web pages; they will be slandered in the press under direct instructions; it’s all part of the show.
You’re part of the show.
But the clue is in how much coverage they receive. All coverage, good or bad, is provided by the enemy for a specific reason. If they really don’t like someone then they are memory holed. They are attacked constantly while receiving no air time whatsoever, unless the goal is for the final kill.
Look at this social media platform that has suddenly sprung up out of nowhere, with hundreds of thousands or “our guys” joining it, and the usual “celebrities” to give it the veneer of the Real Thing. It’s not the real thing; it’s a giant control.
But back to Milo. The second way to tell if someone is working for the prince of lies is to simply watch what they do. As always, words count for naught. It is actions that count.
Milo is a Jewish, homosexual pervert, married to a black man. Please. A few years ago I watched one of his US college speeches where he was carried into the auditorium on a throne by four mostly naked muscular men. But hey, he says the right things, yeah? And he’s gay so he must be awesome to have on our side!
Like I said; the prince of lies has a sense of humor. It’s not enough that you fall for his lies, No, you have to be humiliated while you do so.
This is lifted from a local blog. It's written by someone around my age, and I can recall the issues around free speech -- which was a vector for liberal values and globohomo until they won, and now is being shut down. Hard. One of the proponents of the liberal view writes. But I have seen the rancid fruit of this process, and I am now wanting an established church, revival in the streets, and the censor's office (yes, NZ still has one) to be very, very active. If you try to micro0regulate what I can read, when the pendulum swings (and it is swinging right now: our Minister of Health has fallen on his sword to save the government) expect microregulation to be applied to you.
This bloke is correct to despair. The liberal project is bankrupt.
This “window of opinion” was as broad as could be in the 1980s. Libertarians. Anarchists. Socialists. Big “C” Conservatives. It was a time of intellectual ferment and difference of opinions. It was a child of the liberalism of the 1960s.
Today, that window has shut, and it’s getting darker. The window of acceptable opinion is so narrow nowadays it reminds me of the Victorian era; instead of whether we’re revealing an ankle, it’s whether we’re mispronouncing Taupo. The so-called liberals are about as illiberal as can be. Freedom of speech is being shut down. We cannot have the fundamental debates about what is right, what is wrong, and what’s inbetween because there is a baying crowd that has already decided. I think George Floyd was murdered for being black. Others may disagree. They have the right to their view, and the right to a civil debate.
The “safetyists” will say that there is no need for civil debate when people’s lives or safety are at risk. That’s hypocritical; they are taking it as a given that human safety is the ultimate ethical imperative, when it’s exactly the sort of thing that is open for debate. The people of Great Britain thought that defiance, democracy, and true liberalism were more important in 1940 than saving lives by surrendering to Hitler. Alexander the Great thought fairness in war was more important than achieving an easier, less costly victory by advancing at night. Humanity has always considered some virtues more important than life and safety at specific times and places. What matters is the freedom to debate which values are more important than safety at a given time. If a slave risked his life for freedom, was he doing the right thing? Modern safetyists would be contorted in knots trying to justify that action, as it would bring into conflict their own preconceptions.
I want a country – and a world – where regardless of the economic system or political system, we have the freedom to debate everything. Where ethics classes at universities can ask whether murder or slavery can ever be morally justified. Where people can protest, or not protest, without immense peer pressure.
As a public servant, I value my political neutrality, but it is becoming harder and harder as so many politically-loaded activities (such as karakia before meetings) are loaded in and seen as “neutral” (i.e. they are so normalised now, nobody sees how political they truly are). There are examples the other way; the normalcy of capitalism, for example, is never questioned even though that is also a political, not a technical, viewpoint. When Auckland Council banned those speakers from community facilities, they were bringing politics into a bureaucratic decision.
I hope I haven’t waffled too much, but that my central point – we are losing freedom of debate – has come through. I don’t know what to do.
If in doubt, lawyers make things up
This will do as the long read of the week. Note that there has not be a trial, nor the end of an enquiry. The facts are immaterial: the tragedy must fit the narrative. Also note that this is Toronto, the most woke part of that most woke nation, Canada.
On May 27th, Claudette Beals-Clayton called the Toronto police from a high-rise apartment in the city’s High Park North neighbourhood. Her 29-year-old daughter, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, was in a state of crisis and acting violently. Beals-Clayton wanted officers to take Korchinski-Paquet to the city’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
Police arrived and coaxed Korchinski-Paquet into the building’s hallway. Then the woman asked if she could go to the bathroom before leaving, and police let her re-enter the apartment. Several officers followed her while family members waited outside. Moments later, the family reportedly heard “Mom, help!” Not long after that, Korchinski-Paquet plunged 24 floors to her death.
In the heat of the moment, a devastated Beals-Clayton told reporters that police “came in my apartment and shoved [my daughter] off the balcony.” A man identifying himself as Korchinski-Paquet’s cousin made similar claims on Instagram. Before waiting for any kind of corroboration, reporters from Vice repeated these claims and vaguely linked the death to George Floyd, the Minneapolis man shown on video suffocating to death with a police officer’s knee on his neck last month. Like Floyd, Korchinski-Paquet was Black. The obvious implication here was that her death might be a race-motivated murder.
I spent five years working in one of Canada’s biggest newsrooms, so I know that it’s typically seen as irresponsible to publish such incendiary claims without the credible account of an eyewitness or some other form of proof. And so, even amidst the decline in journalistic quality and capacity on many municipal news desks, I was still surprised when I saw more reputable outlets pick up the Vice story, including the implication that racist police officers may have thrown a suffering woman to her death from a balcony.
Even if police officers were inclined to do such an unspeakable thing—is it credible that they would do so in broad delight, with at least four fellow officers and multiple family members close by? Korchinski-Paquet reportedly had been suffering seizures for years, and this was not the first time the family had summoned the police. Previous visits had involved reports of an occupant brandishing a knife. In the tragedy that unfolded last month, a police source told a local newspaper, Korchinski-Paquet had barricaded the balcony door using an appliance, and then slipped while trying to escape by jumping onto a neighbour’s balcony. I can’t corroborate that story. But it certainly makes a lot more sense.
Her death triggered an investigation by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit, which occurs automatically whenever there is a police-involved death in the province. Police Chief Mark Saunders, who happens to be Black, spoke out to say that “a lot of [the narrative around Korchinski-Paquet] is misinformation, a lot of it is lies,” and pleaded for the public to “wait for the truth.” But amid complaints of media leaks, Beals-Clayton refused to speak to investigators, while a GoFundMe organized by Korchinski-Paquet’s sister raised more than $450,000. Anti-racism advocates organized marches through the downtown core to demand “Justice for Regis.” The incident is also being cited as proof that Toronto needs to “defund the police,” a cause that’s now being seriously considered by city councillors. On June 8th, Chief Saunders announced his resignation, saying that he wants to focus on preventing the problem of “young Black boys killing young Black boys.”
Even if lawyers have a bad reputation, it would serve us well to be a little more lawyerly in situations like this, waiting for facts and evidence to emerge before jumping to sweeping, emotionally charged conclusions. Yet at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School, where I study, no one’s seemed much in the mood for fact-finding. The student union released a statement on behalf of the Black Law Students’ Association (BLSA) declaring that Korchinski-Paquet was killed “as a result of police violence” that “systematically targeted towards Black people.” Other school groups immediately joined the chorus. We were instructed that “individuals who are not Black” are hereby required to “act in solidarity with the Black community by listening to and amplifying the voices of Black people by starting with ‘I hear you, I believe you.’”
Which is awkward, because even the family’s own lawyer admitted early on that he did not “believe” the uncorroborated reports that police officers murdered Korchinski-Paquet in cold blood. And so it’s not clear why anyone should be required to “amplify” the voices of those who repeat this erroneous claim. In fact, spreading misinformation can inflict real harm. Yes, it’s terrible that about one Black Torontonian per year dies at the hands of the police, and those officers who behave illegally should be investigated and prosecuted as criminals. But from the rhetoric that’s now become common, one might think that Toronto police were conducting some kind of continual pogrom in Black neighbourhoods. That claim is unsupported by the numbers, and it likely makes Black Torontonians unnecessarily fearful.
You might as well say High Rise Apartments kill, and insist that all balconies be not accessible above the second storey of any building. That would make more of a difference.
Red Pill Wisdom
This is good advice for those courting. I do not consider that social media is good for anyone. I don't have a Gab account. I don't have a Parler account, and every time the idea of joining SocialGalactic comes up I get hives. Above all, I don't have an instagram, despite it being used by every second church and crossfit box. You don't need Facebook to look at Facebook.
You should all have a horizontal social media profile because human resources will be looking as well as any prospective partner.
Often, they want to get involved with them. How might you find out what you are getting into?
There is facebook of course. Lots of young women reveal way more than they should. From a perusal of a Facebook page one might find clues as to whether she [A pain in the neck]. Perhaps in some cases, these are not red flags, but for a long term relationship they are. Oddly enough, many women don’t bother to hide these detrimental clues. In this case, this ends up being a twofer, you eliminate a prospect based on negative attributes plus being not clever enough to cover them up.
In other cases, they are clever enough to try to cover stuff up. What to do in this case? You need to look closer. Perhaps she did not cover everything up, look very closely. Check how things are phrased, there might be clues there. Look at her friends, as you will be know by the friends you keep.
This cuts both ways: young woman, facebook is not your friend. Do things, don't document them on social media. Young man, learn how to be alone and then you may be able to shepherd. Do not, young man, be sheeple: leave that to the converged progressive trolls on twitter.
The quintessential man is a shepherd. He doesn’t need the sheep; they need him. There are blessings and rewards for getting involved, for tying yourself to their needs, but you could live without them. In fact, it’s easier to be a predator. But in the grand moral sense of how the universe operates, if you really want the best of what’s available, you’ll take up the often thankless task of shepherding.
Fundamental to the whole thing is your own sense of need. If you are needy, you are a sheep yourself. You’re a little boy who still needs his mommy, still nursing at the breast. You aren’t fulfilling her needs, because you drag on her inner resources too long and the sabbatical rest is denied. These are all symbols conveying a very deep truth beyond clinical discussion. If you haven’t taken responsibility for the things demanded of you, if you haven’t first demanded satisfaction of what you need from yourself, you can’t let go and stand alone.
If you can’t stand alone, you can’t do anything for anyone else which matters. It means you don’t matter. You’re a problem, not the solution.